HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/13/2009 - PLACEMENT OF PORTABLE SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF DATE: January 13, 2009 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Helen Migchelbrink FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Tracy Dyer
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Placement of Portable Signs in the Public Right-of-way in the Downtown Area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Municipal Code currently prohibits the placement of portable signs in the
public right-of-way (ROW). Portable signs, generally known as "sandwich board" or "a-frame"
signs, are a common type of advertising device in many downtown areas and other areas that are
predominantly pedestrian oriented. There has been interest expressed by some in the downtown
business community in,legalizing the use of such signs in the downtown area. The purpose would
be to display menus and other information for downtown businesses in a way that would enhance
the downtown pedestrian experience.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is seeking Council direction on which of the two options it wishes to pursue and what
additional information Council needs.
Option 1: Continue the status quo and current regulations that do not allow the placement of
portable signs in the downtown public right-of-way.
or
Option 2: Revise the City regulations and with limitations allow the placement of portable
signs in the downtown public right-of-way.
BACKGROUND
THE ISSUE
Currently,portable signs are prohibited by City Code. These regulations are in place to ensure safe
clearance and to minimize visual clutter. Business owners in pedestrian oriented areas indicate that
portable signs are an important tool to maintain a healthy business environment. The goal is to find
a solution that fosters a healthy downtown business climate, maintains a safe environment for
pedestrians and prevents visual clutter.
As part of the Fall 2006 proposed Land Use Code Changes(City Council work session,October 24,
2006),portable signs in the public right-of-way were discussed. At that time, Council expressed its
January 13, 2009 Page 2
concerns that too many signs would impair/tarnish the appearance of the downtown by making it
look cluttered and unsightly;other concerns centered on the duration signs were exhibited and their
size. Council concluded that regulating portable signs was a delicate balance between community
aesthetics and safety and merchants' ability to sustain a healthy economy through advertising. It
was Council's direction to explore the possibility of allowing signs only for new businesses and for
special occasions.
OUTREACH AND RESEARCH
At the October 24, 2006 work session, Council suggested that one approach to the problem would
be to allow the use of portable signs only by new businesses for a limited period of time. The
concept was presented to the Downtown Business Association (DBA). The DBA had concerns
about equity and felt that limiting signs only to new businesses would create an unfair advertisement
advantage for competing businesses. Established businesses provide a solid economic foundation
for downtown and the DBA cited this as another reason to not differentiate and provide special sign
allowances for new businesses. At the same time, there was a strong desire to find a workable
solution. Other options were discussed, such as allowing signs for all businesses with limitations,
limiting numbers of days or using a rotating alternating schedule.
As part of the outreach process,staff contacted the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)
to obtain a clearer understanding of ownership responsibilities and the sign regulations on College
Avenue(U.S. Highway 287). As a state highway, CDOT regulates the use and its associated right-
of-way. After substantial correspondence concerning the matter and an extensive discussion and
investigation into the ownership of College Avenue, it was determined that CDOT owned the
roadway and the sidewalks belonged to the City. This information led CDOT to redefine its position
to not get involved with portable signs as long as they were small, pedestrian oriented, and not
visible to the driving public. This process took over a year to resolve with CDOT.
Following the CDOT decision, staff surveyed 15 other Colorado communities to see how they dealt
with portable sign issues (see Attachment 4). Eleven cities prohibit signs in the right-of-way. The
other four either require a permit with or without a fee,limit the number of calendar days signs may
be displayed, or both. Some communities, such as Boulder and Loveland, strictly forbid the
placement of portable signs in all of their rights-of-way. Other communities, such as Glenwood
Springs,allow placement in the downtown district while prohibiting them in other areas of the city.
Information from the survey was shared with the downtown business owners and the DBA.
Since the last work session, City staff has spent considerable time surveying the downtown area,
meeting with other City staff and local business representatives to determine the best approach to
accommodate the desires of Council and the needs of the business community-- to advertise with
portable signs in the ROW,while preserving public safety and mobility on downtown sidewalks and
minimizing sign clutter.
On October 8, 2008, staff again discussed the sign issue with the DBA Board and presented a
scenario to address and balance the various needs which would allow portable signs on a limited
basis,as long as they met certain requirements. The requirements are outlined in the proposed code
revisions listed below. The DBA is supportive of this approach, and indicated that if the changes
were approved,they would help in actively promoting the limitations and requirements.
January 13, 2009 Page 3
CURRENT ENFORCEMENT
Pending the outcome of this issue, City staff has not been proactively enforcing the restrictions on
portable signs in the downtown. During this time signs have proliferated, giving staff the
opportunity to observe what would be acceptable and what would not. In some instances, these
signs have become unacceptable obstructions and safety hazards. In those situations,enforcement
did occur as safety has always remained a primary consideration.
PROPOSED CODE REVISIONS
Staff has determined that signs could be placed in the downtown right-of-way and still maintain
enough clearance for pedestrian travel and other sidewalk amenities. In addition, the proposed
regulations would minimize clutter by controlling the placement of portable signs. If portable signs
were to be allowed, requirements that should be adopted are outlined as follows:
a. No more than one portable sign per business.
b. Clearance on the sidewalk must provide no less than seven feet of clear walkable space for
basic pedestrian travel.
C. Portable signs should be no more than 30 inches wide, 30 inches deep, and 60 inches high
from ground to top.
d. Signs shall be displayed only during hours in which the business is open and be placed only
in locations where the displayed message is directed to pedestrian traffic along a sidewalk.
e. Portable signs should be placed no more than 32 inches from the building face or placed two
feet from curb and not obstruct pedestrian traffic.
f. Businesses that have permitted patio encroachments must place their signs within the limits
of the encroachment.
g. Those businesses that want a portable sign must receive a revocable permit. The applicant
must include a sketch that will define where the sign will be placed, and provide proof of
insurance equal to the requirement for patio encroachments.
h. Portable signs will be required to meet material and visual appearance specifications as
established by City staff. Factors to be considered include: weight,sign material,sturdiness,
safety of construction and offensive content. This will be handled through administrative
guidelines.
i. Portable signs will only be permitted in those area(s)that offer on-street parking that blocks
the sight of the signs to passing motorists. A geographic boundary will be established that
defines the area in which portable signs may be placed.
j. Maintenance of the sign(s)will be the sole responsibility of the permittee. Neither the City
nor its staff will be responsible for the maintenance of any permitted sign. If a sign appears
January 13, 2009 Page 4
to be ill-maintained,the permittee will be required to immediately remove the sign and make
the appropriate repairs.
These proposed parameters include requirements that are consistent with other safety criteria used
to regulate the placement of objects in the public right-of-way,namely newsracks and outdoor eating
areas. Safety,appearance and maintenance of portable signs are important elements to consider and
would be reflected in any such proposed ordinance. These efforts attempt to balance the individual
business needs of the downtown with the needs of pedestrians for a safe passageway.
CURRENT REGULATIONS
In accordance with City Code Sections 17-42 and 24-1, the placement of advertising signs within
the public rights-of-way is prohibited. Violation of these sections would result in the sign being
removed by City staff following 24 hours of notification. It is currently estimated that there are 50
portable signs in the downtown during at the peak season for pedestrian traffic. If City Code were
strictly followed, all of these signs would be removed. Downtown businesses have indicated that
this would negatively impact them.
CONCLUSION
The issue has been a difficult and complex one to address. The proposed changes to the City's
regulations represent an approach to balance safety,non-proliferation of signage,and marketing to
sustain a strong business climate in downtown.
If Council supports the direction, staff will prepare an ordinance that will permit businesses,under
certain conditions and guidelines, to place portable signs in the ROW.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Current City Code - Section 17-42 and 24-1.
2. Summaries of Public Outreach meetings with the Downtown Business Association, held
January 26, 2007, February 20, 2007 and February 23, 2007.
3. Memo to CDOT, outlining the City's plans to pursue allowing pedestrian oriented signs on
City-owed sidewalk/right-of-way along downtown College Avenue, dated February 15,
2008.
4. Summary of survey from other communities
5. Power Point presentation.
6. Excerpt from Work Session Summary- October 24, 2006
ATTACHMENT
City of Fort Collins Municipal Code
Sec. 1'7-42. Posting notices and handbills on premises.
(a)The following words, terms and phrases,when used in this Section, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this Subsection(a):
Commercial or business sign shall mean any sign, flier, notice or poster intended to
advertise, direct or attract the attention of the public to a business, or
intended to induce the purchase of goods, services, property or
entertainment,or to promote business or employment opportunities.
Noncommercial sign shall mean any sign, flier, notice or poster which is not
intended to advertise, direct or attract the attention of the public to a
business, or intended to induce the purchase of goods, services,property
or entertainment, or to promote business or employment opportunities,
including but not limited to signs conveying a political, ideological or
personal message.
Public property shall mean any portion of real property, pole,post, tree,barricade,
bridge, fence, railing, utility box, curb, sidewalk,wall, bench, building or
structure of any kind which is either publicly owned or located in the
public right-of-way.
Public right-of-way shall mean the entire area between property boundaries which is
owned by a government, dedicated to public use,or impressed with an
easement for public use, which is primarily used for pedestrian or
vehicular travel, and which is publicly maintained, in whole or in part, and
includes,but is not limited to the street, gutter, curb, shoulder, sidewalk,
sidewalk area, parking or parking strip, median and any public way.
(b)No person, firm or corporation shall fasten or affix to public property, or place
or install on or within a public right-of-way or other public property, any of the
following, without the direct authorization of the owner of such property:
(1)Any commercial or business sign.
(2) Any noncommercial sign.
(c)Any signs authorized by the City for placement on City property within the
meaning of this Section must comply with all other applicable provisions of the
Code.
(d)No person, firm or corporation shall fasten or affix to private property,
including motor vehicles and other personal property, in any way, any of the
following, without the permission of the owner or occupants of such property:
(1) Any commercial or business sign.
City of Fort Collins Municipal Code
(2) Any noncommercial sign.
(e) Permission to fasten or affix signs to the front door of private residences shall .
be implied from the presence of an improved walkway connecting such residence
directly to a public right-of-way unless:
(1)Access to such walkway is physically restricted by a fence, gate or other
permanent structure, or
(2) A "No Trespassing" or"No Solicitation" sign or a sign prohibiting posting is
posted at or near the entrance to such residence; or
(3)The owner or occupant of a particular residence has notified the person or entity
intending to fasten or affix the sign that such sign may not be fastened or
otherwise affixed to the residence.
(f)Except as provided in Subsection (g)below, if the City Engineer determines
that a commercial or business sign or noncommercial sign has been fastened,
affixed,placed or installed in or on public property in violation of this Section,the
City shall attempt to contact, by any reasonable means, the person or entity whose
business, interests or activities are advertised, furthered or promoted by such sign
and notify said person or entity that the sign will be removed by the City and
summarily destroyed if not previously removed by said person or entity within
twenty-four (24) hours of the notice. If such person or entity cannot reasonably be
ascertained or if the sign is not removed within twenty-four(24)hours after notice
is given by the City, the City may remove and destroy the sign without further
notice, notwithstanding the provisions of§ 23-130 of this Code.
(g)Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the circumstances under which a sign has
been fastened, affixed, placed or installed are such that, in the judgment of the
City Engineer,the sign creates a safety hazard, or if the sign is discovered by the
City within the twenty-four-hour period immediately preceding a Saturday,
Sunday, City holiday or an election day to which the sign relates, the City need
not attempt to contact the person or entity whose business, interests or activities
are advertised, furthered or promoted by the sign before summarily removing and
destroying the sign.
(h) If, within ten(10)days after the City has given or attempted to give the notice
referenced in Subsection (f) above, any sign advertising the same business,
interests or activities that were the subject of the previous notice is subsequently
found in violation of this Section, the City may summarily remove and dispose of
the sign without additional notice, notwithstanding the provisions of§ 23-130 of
this Code.
(i) Failure to remove a sign after notice has been given pursuant to Subsection (f)
is a violation of this Section.
a
City of Fort Collins Municipal Code
(Code 1972, § 84-3(C); Ord. No. 41, 1994, § 2, 4-5-94; Ord. No. 134, 2002, 9-17-02;
Ord.No. 141, 2002, 10-1-02; Ord.No. 201, 2004, § 1, 1-4-05; Ord.No. 018-2007, § 1, 2-
6-07)
3
City of Fort Collins Municipal Code
Sec. 24-1. Signs on streets, sidewalks and public rights-of-way prohibited; removal;
exceptions; permit.
Notwithstanding the provisions of§ 17-42,the following signs shall be permitted on
streets, sidewalks and other areas owned by the City:
(1) Signs hanging above City sidewalks provided that such signs are solely
connected to private property and provided that such signs are allowed under
Section 3.8.7 of the City s Land Use Code.
(2)Traffic control signs erected by the City and directional or informational signs
erected by the City or other governmental entities which relate to facilities and
areas owned,maintained or operated by the City or such other governmental
entities. Before any directional or informational sign of a governmental entity
other than the City is erected, the governmental entity must obtain a permit
authorizing the sign from the City Engineer.
(3) Signs erected by the City to publicize community activities, celebrations and
events.
(4)Neighborhood recognition signs erected by the City to identify a particular
neighborhood;provided, however,that such signs shall only be erected and
maintained in those neighborhoods within which a qualified neighborhood
organization exists for the purpose of considering and acting upon a broad range
of issues affecting the neighborhood. A qualified neighborhood organization shall
mean an organization which the City Engineer has determined satisfies all of the
following requirements:
a. The neighborhood area that the organization represents must have identifiable,
geographical boundaries;
b. The neighborhood area that the organization represents must have at least two
hundred(200)households within the boundaries of the neighborhood
unless none of the boundaries of the neighborhood area are adjacent to and
touch the boundaries of another existing residential neighborhood, in
which case the neighborhood area that the organization represents need
only have at least fifty (50)households within the boundaries of the
neighborhood;
c. The organization must have at least one (1)elected representative;
d. Membership in the organization must be open to all residents,property owners
and business owners within the boundaries of the neighborhood;
7
City of Fort Collins Municipal Code
e, Except for residency, ownership of property and location of a business within the
neighborhood boundaries,the organization must have no other
requirements for membership;
f. The organization must not require payment of a membership fee as a condition of
voting;
g. All of the organization's meetings must be open to the entire membership;
h. The organization must hold at least one(1) meeting each calendar year;
i. All members of the organization must be sent prior notice of all meetings of the
organization; and
j. The organization must file and maintain a current set of bylaws with the City's
Neighborhood Resources Office.
(5) If at any time the City Engineer determines that a neighborhood organization
which has existing neighborhood recognition signs does not, for any reason,
satisfy all the requirements set forth in Paragraph (c)(4) of this Section, the City
Engineer shall give notice to the sign owner to remove the sign within ten (10)
days. If the sign owner fails to remove the sign after notice,the City Engineer
may remove and dispose of the sign without further notice,notwithstanding the
provisions of§ 23-130, in addition to issuing a citation for violation of this
Section.
(6) Signs placed by the City on bus benches and bus shelters displaying
advertisements,provided that:
a. Any bus shelters displaying advertising signs shall be located either: (1) within
three hundred (300) feet of any existing commercial/retail or industrial
use, (2)within three hundred(300) feet of any land zoned to permit any
commercial/retail or industrial use, or(3) along any arterial street provided
that no residential uses front on such arterial street within three hundred
(300) feet of such bus shelter; and
b. If signs are placed on bus benches or bus shelters by a private contractor pursuant
to a contract between the City and said contractor, such contract shall
specify the content, size,placement, illumination, design and material to
be used for the construction of the benches or shelters, and the signs
placed thereon, so as to minimize the visual impacts of such signs on the
general public and surrounding properties.
(7)Neighborhood entry signs which have been authorized pursuant to Chapter 23,
Article III, Division 4 of this Code.
City of Fort Collins Municipal Code
(Code 1972, §§ 95-60-95-62; Ord. No. 66, 1988, 5-3-88; Ord.No. 84, 1997, 6-17-97;
Ord. No. 222, 1998, § 3, 12-15-98; Ord.No. 192, 1999, 1-4-00; Ord.No. 193, 1999, § 2,
1-4-00; Ord. No. 145,2000, 11-7-00; Ord.No. 201,2004, § 2, 1-4-05; Ord.No. 018-
2007, § 5, 2-6-07)
Cross-reference—Signs, Section 3.8.7 of the Land Use Cod
ATTACHMENT
PORTABLE SIGNS DOWNTOWN
First Public Outreach Meeting — January 26, 2007
Downtown Business Association
Downtown Business Association Staff and Members:
David Short, D.B.A.
Shannon Wilson, D.B.A. Board Member and Pendleton Store Manager
Lee Swanson, Ben and Jerry's Manager
,pity of Fort Collins Staff,
Mike Herzig, Special Projects Engineer and Project Manager
Lance Newlin, Chief Construction Inspector
Peter Bames, Zoning Supervisor
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Kelly DiMartino, Communications and Public Involvement Manager
The meeting began with a background summary and chronology of City Council
direction on the issue of the use of Portable Signs in Downtown. Staff provided a
draft of standards addressing portable signs that, if adopted, would be placed in
Chapter 23, Division 3 of the City Code, not the Land Use Code that contains the
Sign Code.
Staff pointed out that there are three major points that need to be understood at
the outset of the discussion:
1. Portable Signs in the right-of-way are currently illegal under the City Code.
2. Since we are dealing with signs that encroach into the right-of-way, the
enforcement of removing illegal Portable Signs is under the jurisdiction of
the Engineering Department, Construction Inspection Division.
3. The Land Use Code, on the other hand, contains the Sign Code and
governs signs located on private property only, not the public right-of-way.
The distinction between signs in the right-of-way versus on private
property is of critical importance in establishing a common frame of
reference in terms of code provisions and enforcement procedures.
The summary is provided in a question and answer format. All responses are
from Staff.
Discussion, Concerns, Comments and Responses
1. How did this issue manifest itself? How did it all of a sudden appear on
Council's radar? Where is the impetus for a change in policy coming from?
A: The City started receiving complaints from Downtown merchants who
observed the placing of Portable Signs on sidewalks. Based on experience,
these merchants knew such placement was illegal. The City also received
complaints from merchants outside the Downtown who, assuming that Portable
Signs were legal, wanted to start installing Portable Signs in other shopping
districts.
2. Was there anything else brought to Council's attention?
A: Yes, in the Fall of 2006, as part of the biannual update to the Land Use
Code, Council passed some changes to the section of the Sign Code that
permits temporary banners. One of the changes was to increase the number of
days a temporary banner could be displayed from 20 to 40 days but for new
businesses in their first year and non-profit organizations only. The theory was
that new businesses needed a little boost in exposure and that non-profits, such
as churches, often advertise functions and activities that are in the public interest.
During these deliberations, Council gave Staff direction to address the Portable
Signs Downtown issue.
3. If Portable Signs are illegal, why is there no enforcement at this time?
A. Staff has decided to adopt an informal moratorium on enforcement while
the issue is being discussed and new policies are formulated. The Construction
Inspection Division, however, still reserves the right to remove any Portable Sign
deemed hazardous to the public.
4. The draft standards look reasonable with one notable exception. The
blanket prohibition for all businesses, except those operating within their first
year, is unfair. This would confer an unfair advantage upon existing businesses.
It is the existing businesses that have generated the economic activity and sales
tax over the years and this draft standard would penalize these establishments.
We should pursue a reasonable approach on the issue of Portable Signs in
general, for all businesses, not just the new ones.
A. Thank you for this comment. This particular draft standard was provided
to Staff by Council during their deliberations on the temporary banners. We will
pass your concern onto Council.
2
5. Why did Council want to limit Portable Signs Downtown to new
businesses only?
A: Council was trying to address the issue of proliferation. If every business
on every block displayed a Portable Sign, this would lead to undesirable clutter.
6. But there is presently not a proliferation of clutter at this time.
A: That is because many merchants are aware that Portable Signs are illegal
under the present regulations.
7. So there is an assumption that allowing Portable Signs will lead to an
unacceptable number and thus clutter?
A: Yes, controlling the proliferation and quantity must be a key element in the
proposed changes that we bring to Council.
8. The cost of purchasing a Portable Sign may deter some from ever
displaying one. For example, the Ben and Jerry's sign cost between $200 and
$400 and is specifically designed to accept interchangeable copy based on
company-wide advertising.
A: While it is interesting to learn the cost of your sign, Staff is unwilling to
allow for cost alone to control proliferation. There probably should be some other
mechanism that addresses the quantity of signs.
9. How about limiting the display to a certain maximum number of days per
year? This would be like the temporary banners section in the Sign Code.
A: Good idea. We will look into such an approach.
10. What about quality? For example, one restaurant uses a chef look-alike
for a Portable Sign. This may be considered unique and creative but it could also
be seen as crossing a line. How do you intend to control for quality?
A: We are not sure at this point. One idea would be to create a design
review committee similar to the role that the Landmark Preservation Commission
plays with regard to historic structures.
11. What about liability issues? As you know, we can get sudden gusts of
wind that can send a Portable Sign flying down the sidewalk.
A: Liability is currently addressed in Chapter 23, Division 3 of the City Code.
The fundamental concept would be to establish a baseline standard that
addresses wind.
3
12. At this point, I must again emphasize that singling out an allowance for
new businesses only would be a major problem. Any new regulations should
apply to all businesses equally. Don't create two classes of businesses
Downtown.
A: Thank you for the comment. We understand that the heart of the issue is
proliferation.
13. Are you thinking of a fee and permit system?
A: Yes, we anticipate a system that includes a fee and a permit based on
demonstrating compliance with minimum standards.
14. And design review?
A: Yes, but we would want a committee to help us with subjective design
review.
15. Have you established the boundary for Downtown with regard to Portable
Signs?
A: Yes, we are thinking that the boundary of the D.D.A. would be a good
starting point and extending the allowance south to Laurel Street, and one block
south of Laurel on the east side of College Avenue. The key is that Portable
Signs can be justified where there is an active pedestrian environment and
because of parking, such signs are not visible to motorists. Portable Signs
should never be used where the primary audience is the car driving down the
street.
16. Any other ideas on quality?
A: Yes, in our inspections, we have noticed that Portable Signs placed on a
pedestals or stands are more attractive than use of easels and A-frames. The
use of the human or animal form appears to cross a line.
17. What about the proliferation of banners on patios, particularly in Old Town
Square?
A: Old Town Square is considered private property and not public right-of-
way. If the banners cannot be seen from right-of-way, then such banners are
generally ignored.
18. What about patios that are not in Old Town Square?
A: Patios that are not in Old Town Square are in the public right-of-way and
only permitted by an Encroachment Permit. Banners on these patios, therefore,
4
are also considered an encroachment. Since we would not want to allow a
business to gain an advantage by having a double encroachment, we are
thinking that a business would be eligible for only a banner or Portable Sign but
not both.
19. What are your next steps?
A: With the cooperation the D.B.A., we are planning two outreach meetings
with members at large. These will be held at the Cache Bank. We have
scheduled a worksession item with City Council for April 24th. This will be with
the newly elected Council.
5
PORTABLE SIGNS DOWNTOWN
Second Public Outreach Meeting — February 20, 2007
Downtown Business Association Members
Downtown Business Association Staff and Members:
David Short, D.B.A.
Approximately 20 Members
City of Fort Collins Staff:
Mike Herzig, Special Projects Engineer and Project Manager
Lance Newlin, Chief Construction Inspector
Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Kelly DiMartino, Communications and Public Involvement Manager
As with the first meeting with D.B.A. Staff and Board Members, this meeting also
began with a background summary and chronology of City Council direction on
the issue of the use of Portable Signs in Downtown. Staff provided a draft of
standards addressing portable signs that, if adopted, would be placed in Chapter
23, Division 3 of the City Code, not the Land Use Code that contains the Sign
Code.
Responses are from City Staff.
Discussion, Concerns, Comments and Responses
1. The new provisions should not be limited to just new businesses for their
first year of operation and non-profits.
2. 1 share your concern about the potential for unattractiveness. This is not
what we want either. Perhaps we could implement a one-year trial period or pilot
project to see the extent of the proliferation problem.
3. Certain materials should be prohibited such as neon.
4. 1 like the idea of a design review committee but I would be concerned if
the committee had control over the subject matter of the Portable Sign.
A: The City is not interested in regulating content. Our primary interest is
public safety and preserving the aesthetics of Downtown. We have talked about
designing for wind, having minimum design standards and proliferation to
address the clutter issue but not individual sign content.
5. One of the draft standards talks about maintaining a clear width for
pedestrians. How much is a clear width?
A: The City requires that there be a minimum of seven feet clear
unobstructed sidewalk width. Any encroachment, whether a Portable Sign or
patio, must maintain seven of clear width for the safety of pedestrians.
6. Regarding proliferation, how about basing it on seniority?
A: This may be difficult to enforce.
7. My prediction is that not everyone will run out and put up a Portable Sign,
especially if you require minimum standards.
8. Let's talk about controlling proliferation. My guess is that restaurants will
be the number one user of Portable Signs. How about limiting the number of
such signs on a block face-by-block face basis depending on the number of
restaurants?
A: We can explore that option.
9. What about setting the maximum number allowed per block face and then
using a lottery system to distribute the maximum number?
A: We can explore that option as well.
10. How about limiting the maximum number but allow the signs to be rotated
or revolved among the various businesses based on set duration such as one
month?
A: Thank you — another good option to consider.
11. How about setting the maximum number per block_face, depending on
how many businesses there are. Then let the merchants determine among
themselves how to distribute the allotment?
A: This can be considered.
2
12. Let's try to keep it simple. How about taking the number of businesses
per block face, and simply divide it by half. This would determine the total
allotment.
A: We are hearing lots of good ideas.
13. 1 recently visited Santa Barbara. You should contact them. Yes there
were Portable Signs but I did not notice a proliferation. Now that [ think about it,
what about Boulder and the Pearl Street Mall?
A: Good suggestions —thank you.
14. Let us all keep in mind that we have elderly customers mixing in with
young customers. Portable Signs, more than anything else, must be safe.
15. 1 like the idea of no allowing a double encroachment. You either get a
patio banner or Portable Sign, but not both.
16. How about some minimum standards for patio banners? Can we specify
standards for length, width, height and material?
A: ??
17. How about-just moving the Portable Signs into the recessed doorways?
This would get them out of the public right-of-way?
A: This would put them on private property where they are not allowed by the
Sign Code.
3
PORTABLE SIGNS DOWNTOWN
Third Public Outreach Meeting — February 23, 2007
Downtown Business Association Members
Downtown Business Association Staff and Members:
David Short, D.B.A.
Approximately 10 Members
City of Fort Collins Staff:
Mike Herzig, Special Projects Engineer and Project Manager
Lance Newlin, Chief Construction Inspector
Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Kelly DiMartino, Communications and Public Involvement Manager
As with the first and second meetings with D.B.A. Staff, Board Members and
Membership, this meeting also began with a background summary and
chronology of City Council direction on the issue of the use of Portable Signs in
Downtown. Staff provided a draft of standards addressing portable signs that, if
adopted, would be placed in Chapter 23, Division 3 of the City Code, not the
Land Use Code that contains the Sign Code.
Responses are from City Staff.
Discussion, Concerns, Comments and Responses
1. 1 can see where the proliferation issue is problematic. None of the
merchants wants to see Downtown cluttered up. But, Portable Signs are a very
valuable advertising device with proven effectiveness. I like the ideal of a one-
year trial basis to monitor the proliferation issue. Then, if we have a problem, we
can explore options to limit the quantity.
2. 1 like the idea of establishing a maximum and then distributing the
allotment by a fair formula.
3. But a lottery is too risky. I would not want to invest in a quality sign only to
not be able to display it due to chance.
1
4. 1 am in support of establishing reasonable minimum standards. These
standards may solve the proliferation issue.
5. 1 agree that baseline qualitative standards are necessary without content
review.
6. The review committee should be the merchants themselves. In the long
term, self-policing is more effective than a committee like the Landmark
Preservation Committee.
7. It seems to boil down to safety and aesthetics. Minimum standards are
needed for the whole package.
8. We need to cooperation on creating reasonable standards and guidelines
or risk total prohibition by the City.
9. A cautious approach would be to establish minimum baseline standards
for safety and quality and then monitor a one-year trial period to assess the
proliferation issue.
a
ATTACHMENT
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
February 15,2008
Mr. Jerry D. Miller,P.E.
Outdoor Advertising Program Manager
Colorado Department of Transportation Safety and Traffic Engineering
4201 East Arkansas Avenue,3rd Floor
Denver,CO 80222
RE; City of Fort Collins plans to pursue allowing Pedestrian Oriented Signs on the City
owned sidewalk/right-of-way along side downtown College Avenue/U.S. Highway 287
Dear Jerry:
This letter is to acknowledge and thank you for your phone message regarding our plan to
propose changes in our City Code that would allow pedestrian oriented signs on the
sidewalks in downtown Fort Collins,including College Avenue,U.S.Highway 287. You
recalled that CDOT determined last year that the sidewalks along College Avenue in the
downtown area are City of Fort Collins right-of-way. I sent you a copy of"PORTABLE
SIGNS—DRAFT,"which listed the criteria that the City is considering for a City Code
revision that would allow for pedestrian oriented signs on the public sidewalks.
Your phone message indicated that CDOT has determined that it has no objection to the
City developing,implementing and enforcing a local ordinance that authorizes and
regulates portable signs on our sidewalks,even if-those regulations do not conform to the
requirements imposed by state law on advertising devices adjacent to state and federally
funded highways. You mentioned that this decision is based primarily on the fact,with
which we agree,that the signs cannot be seen from the highway, and they are not
designed to be advertising to people driving up and down the highway. You indicated
that this will be CDOT's position unless and until the Federal Highway Administration
takes exception to the position CDOT has taken, at which time CDOT may_revisit the
issue.
Based upon your response, we,plan to pursue changes in our City Code that would allow
pedestrian oriented signs to be placed on sidewalks in City rights-of-way in downtown
Fort Collins,including College Avenue, U.S.Highway 287.
Last week I talked to you about whether the same consideration could be applied to State
Highway 14 (Jefferson Street), in order to allow the same type of signs. You said that the
same criteria would apply,meaning that CDOT would not object to portable signs along
Jefferson Street,although the Federal Highway Administration might take exception to
281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6605 • FAX(970)221-6378
www.fcgov.com
CDOT's current position. You also said that you have more concern about signs along
Jefferson than you do about signs on College because signs may be more visible for
motor vehicle traffic on Jefferson since the sidewalk is narrow and many locations do not
have a parking lane to buffer the travel lanes from the sidewalk, For this reason,you
suggested that any signs placed on Jefferson should be small,kept back away from the
curb, and should not block the sidewalk to meet ADA criteria. In addition,you strongly
suggested,but would not require,that the signs should be attached in some way to the
buildings. As you and I discussed, we will include criteria in our proposed changes to
our City Code to address these items for State Highway 14,Jefferson Street,
If you have any objection to our plan,please respond in writing to this letter by February
29,2008.
I want to also thank you and the CDOT staff for the spirit of mutual cooperation and
problem solving related to this matter.
Sincerely, r
Michael R.Herzig,P.E.
Manager of Capital Projects and Street Oversizing
ATTACHMENT 4
Portable Signs Community Survey
The table lists the cities that allow the placement of portable signs and those which do not allow
their placement in the public rights of way.
City, Allowed Not Allowed
Colorado Springs* XX
Lafayette■ XX
Brighton- xx
Glenwood Springs f XX
Fort Collins XX
Denver (16th Street Mall) XX
Boulder YIX
Loveland xx
Grand Junction XX
Greeley XX
Greenwood Village xx
Englewood XX
Littleton XX
Wheat Ridge XX
Highlands Ranch/Douglas XX
County
*Colorado Springs: $45 annual permit+ insurance
■Lafayette: permit required, allows120 days - can not impede pedestrians/vehicles
• Brighton permit required- no fee, allows not more than 180 days/year or more than
60 days of display in any 90 day period
f Glenwood Springs Permitted in special downtown district only
Littleton Allows realtor signs on weekends
City Council Work Session
Date : January 13t" , 2009
Portable Signs in the Public Right of Way
Helen Migchelbrink and Tracy Dyer
City Engineering Department
F�t
Issue
• Definition of portable signs
• City Code prohibition
• Downtown business community
• Goal : Common ground
,wF``ort��s
October, 2006 Work Session
Council concerns :
• Clutter and unsightliness
• Size
• Could signs be allowed for new business /
special occasions displays only?
F�t
Subsequent Actions
• Outreach to DBA and DDA
• Engage with CDOT
• Research approach by other cities
• Develop a list of acceptable criteria
• Revisit Downtown
444 F�tf
Outreach with DBA & DDA
Reactions :
• Adds economic boost to store owners
• Builds vitality to pedestrian oriented downtown
• Create unfair advertising advantage
• Existing businesses provide sales tax base
Suggested direction :
• Establish portable sign regulations
F�t
Engagement with CDOT
• Extensive communication
• CDOT regulates College Avenue
• Allow signs if
• Small
• Pedestrian oriented
• Not visible to drivers
Fort
What have other communities done ?
,mot, [tins
Communities Surveyed
Prohibited Allowed
Fort Collins Colorado Springs
Boulder Lafayette
Loveland Brighton
Grand Junction Glenwood Springs
Greeley
Greenwood Village
Englewood
Littleton
Wheat Ridge
Denver 16t" Street Mall
Highlands Ranch Frt�1
Signs Prohibited in Walk Ways
If o �,, .
r _
Denver' s 16th Street Mall
F�t
Signs Prohibited — Not Enforced
--
:R
Boulder -- Pearl Street Area
F� [tins
Signs Allowed
.04
r
Glenwood Springs — State Hwy 82
[tins
Proposed Criteria
• Revocable permit / insurance required
• 7 ' Pedestrian clearance
• Max dimensions : 30" x 30" x 60" high
• Sign within 32 " building front or 2 ' from curb
• Sign placed within existing patio space
• Adhere to aesthetic and stability specifications
• Permitted in pedestrian oriented areas only
F� [tins
Downtown Fort Col I i ns
• Competition for limited space
• Fit within proposed guidelines
F�t
13
Competing Space
�4 E
U AR
Placement Acceptable / Size Acceptable
PIZZA 2
Location Acceptable / Size Acceptable
dry.
FL tf�
Clearance Acceptable / Size Acceptable
llr R 'ti'
Fit,f
Clearance Acceptable / Size Acceptable
1p
17
18
FL tf�
Clearance Acceptable / Size Not Acceptable
, .
NA 1 _
a
[tins
Clearance Acceptable /
Size & Location Not Acceptable
P
�t [tins
Size Acceptable /
Clearance & Location Not Acceptable
l
Size Acceptable /
Clearance & Location Not Acceptable
yI
w 1
t
21
• .
22
�J `
Size & Clearance Acceptable /
Location Not Acceptable
lot=
a` + CLEAR SPACE
23
24
12
F�tf�
Location & Size Not Acceptable
tl
i
FL tf�
Location / Size / Clearance Not Acceptable
' I
o a
[tins
Options
• Option 1 : Continue current regulations that do not
allow placement of portable signs in the downtown
public right-of-way
• Option 2 : Revise City regulations and with limitations
allow the placement of portable signs in the
downtown public right of way
F� [tins
Rationale supporting Code Change
• Enhances vibrant downtown
• Provides information to pedestrians
• Addresses safety concerns
• Minimizes visual clutter
[tins
Next Steps
Should Council give direction to move forward :
• Draft Ordinance
• Engage Downtown Business Association
• Return to Council for consideration of ordinance
F� [tins
ATTACHMENT
Excerpt from Work Session Summary
October 24,2006
Emergency Access —to eliminate
v access reauirements in t
and those in the Uniform Fire Code. -
Council understands the duplication be and Use Code and the
Uniform Fire Code and supports t revision. Council, however, provided
direction that certain fire standards should be evaluated for being too
strict resulting in sign in both infiili/re-development and greenfield
locations. ample, the minimum tum-around diameter for cul-de-sacs and
th um width of fire access lanes results in excessive pavement.
4. 744 Amend portions of Section 3.8.7—the Sian Code-to update
reaulations for certain tvpes of signs.
A. Banners:
Council expressed support riding the allowable duration for display
of banners beyond rent limit of 20 days but only for non-profit
organization as churches, and for new businesses that are
adve ' rand-opening events. Also, Council indicated that a
nable size limit on banners should be codified since there is no limit
at this time.
B. Portable (Sandwich Board) Signs:
Council expressed concern that if every business in Downtown displayed
a portable sign, on an unlimited basis, then the amount of clutter would be
unacceptable. However, Council went on to express that portable signs
could possibly become more attractive if there were higher minimum
uniform design standards that guaranteed higher quality and aesthetics. It
was suggested that the Downtown Development Authority and the
Downtown Business Association could take a lead role in developing
these standards. Concerns were also expressed regarding unlimited
duration and maximum allowable height of five feet. As with banners,
there was an indication that special allowance should be made for new
businesses advertising a grand-opening event. Council concluded that
regulating portable signs represents a very delicate balancing act between
overall community aesthetics and the desire of individual merchants to
advertise their products and services.
C. Electronic Message Boards:
Council supports the proposed code revisions
investigate a o bring the non-conforming
2